Bail Application – Allegation of Assault – Petitioner accused of participating in an assault with other co-accused, giving lalkara and kick blows – FIR No.70 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Co-accused granted bail in related cases. [Paras 1-3]

Legal Principles for Bail – Citing "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, and "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1 – Emphasis on bail as a rule and jail as an exception, presumption of innocence, and the right to speedy trial. [Paras 5-7]

Petitioner's Incarceration – Faced incarceration for 10 months and 3 days – Co-accused who inflicted more serious injuries already granted bail. [Paras 4, 10]

Final Order – Petitioner granted bail based on the principle of parity and the nature of the allegations – Directed to furnish bail and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned court. [Para 11]

Conditions and Future Conduct – Warning against involvement in similar offences in the future – State's liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of repeat offences. [Para 12]

Challenge Against SSRB Decision - Rejection of Application for Premature Release - Petitioner, wife of a life convict, contests the SSRB's decision, questioning its constitution and the grounds of rejection not aligning with higher courts' views. [Para 1]

Supreme Court Precedent - Emphasis on Reformative Punishment - Reference to the case of Rajo alias Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar, highlighting the Supreme Court's view on reformative goals of imprisonment. [Para 2]

Factors for Premature Release - Considerations Beyond Crime Nature - The court highlights necessary factors like the convict's potential for future crimes, socio-economic conditions, familial relationships, reintegration possibility, remission earned, educational qualifications acquired in custody, and overall human development. [Para 3]

SSRB Decision-Making Process - Non-reliance on Judge or Police Reports - The SSRB should not solely depend on the presiding judge or police reports for decision-making. [Para 4]

High Court Precedents - Consistent Views on Premature Release - Reference to Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and other judgments supporting the Supreme Court's stance on reformative justice. [Para 5]

Inadequate Consideration of Convict's Conduct and Potential - Lack of evidence regarding the convict's behavior in custody and involvement in productive activities or further education. [Paras 12-13]

Unfounded Opposition and Economic Conditions - Opposition to release not supported by solid reasons; poor socio-economic condition of the convict's family. [Para 16]

Right to Dignity under Article 21 - The petitioner's right to live with dignity should not be compromised due to past conviction. [Para 18]

Call for Proper SSRB Constitution - Need for reconsideration of the premature release request by a properly constituted SSRB. [Para 20]

Court’s Decision - Direction to SSRB to reconsider the premature release request, adhering to indicated yardsticks, within one month. [Para 21]

Income Tax – Delay in Filing Form 10 – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner sought quashing of order by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and for directions to accept Form No.10 with condoned delay. Amendments in Income Tax Act and rules leading to inadvertent delay acknowledged. Comparison with similar condonation in AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 highlighted. [Para 1, 2, 3]

Administrative Oversight – Lack of Awareness of Amendments – Delay due to lack of awareness of officials about amendments in Income Tax Act. CBDT Circulars emphasizing liberal approach in condonation of delays for mitigating genuine hardships of assessees considered. [Para 5, 7]

Judicial Reasoning – Discretion in Condonation of Delay – Court observed absence of valid reasons in impugned order for non-condonation of delay. Emphasis on understanding the motive behind delay and the principle of mitigating genuine hardship. [Para 6, 9]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Order and Condonation of Delay – Impugned order set aside. Delay in submission of Form 10 for AY 2016-17 condoned. Form-10 to be accepted with necessary consequences. [Para 10]

Civil Suit – Grant of conditional leave to defend – Defendant challenges the Trial Court’s order granting conditional leave to defend – Defendant disputes financial transactions and execution of handwritten undertaking – Defendant failed to comply with the Trial Court’s directions and delayed approaching the Court – Defendant’s conduct indicates an intent to protract legal proceedings – Plaintiff relied on dishonored cheques and handwritten undertaking – Defendant’s defense of issuing blank cheques without consideration is weak – Defendant’s admission of signatures on the undertaking while disputing its contents – Trial Court’s discretion to impose conditions for leave to defend – Interference with discretionary order under Article 227 requires a showing of patently erroneous exercise of discretion – Defendant failed to make a case for interference – Petition dismissed.

Injunction – Restraining Sale of Property – Appellants restrained from selling disputed property till further orders – Appeal against Single Judge's order in Original Suit for partition, declaration, and permanent injunction – Court maintaining status quo to protect property rights during litigation. [Para 1, 7, 8]

Property Rights – Sale of Property in Dispute – Challenge to the legality of sale based on claims of fraud and collusion in execution of relinquishment deed – Consideration of legal heir's rights in property inherited from deceased father. [Para 2, 3]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appellate court’s approach to discretion exercised by trial court in granting temporary injunction – Appellate court not to substitute its discretion except in cases of arbitrary, capricious or perverse exercise of discretion. [Para 5, 6]

Temporary Injunction – Principles for Grant – Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – Upholding Single Judge's findings on all three considerations for granting injunction to protect property during litigation. [Para 7, 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Upholding Single Judge's order, maintaining injunction against appellants from selling disputed property – Appeal and pending application dismissed. [Para 9

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque dishonored – Account blocked – Maintaining the account – Accused acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment – Issue of whether the account on which the cheques were drawn can be said to be maintained by the drawer when the said account was blocked/frozen/attached on the orders of an authority – Interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner argues that the judgment ignored settled case law accommodating situations arising from deliberate acts/omissions of the accused – Relying on Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 and Pankaj Mehra & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 756 – Respondent argues that the account was blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer – Citing Modi Cements Limited vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 745 – Court finds that the account being blocked for reasons beyond the control of the drawer does not amount to a voluntary act of the drawer – Petitioner fails to prove the first ingredient of Section 138 of NI Act – Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate upheld – Leave petition dismissed.

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act – Accused acquitted by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Neemuch, in Special S.T. No.32A/2018. [Para 1]

Facts of the Case – Secret information led to the interception of co-accused Indarmal with 2 Kg 600 grams of opium – Respondent Ajay implicated based on Indarmal’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Para 2, 3]

State’s Contention – Appellant/State challenged the trial court’s judgment, claiming it overlooked the evidence and prosecution witnesses’ statements, and failed to consider the presumption in favor of the State. [Para 4]

Trial Court’s Acquittal – Grounded on insufficient evidence to establish respondent Ajay’s involvement in the alleged crime – Relied only on the co-accused’s memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Para 6]

Appellate Principles – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the cautious approach in appellate intervention against acquittals – Interference only on compelling and substantial grounds. [Paras 7-8]

High Court’s Decision – Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order and no compelling reasons for appellate interference – Dismissal of appeal and declination of leave to appeal. [Para 9, 10]

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Modification of maintenance amount by Appellate Tribunal – Original order requiring each brother to pay Rs.700/- per month – Appellate order enhanced petitioner's payment to Rs.3000/- per month, leaving other brother's payment unchanged – Petitioner's challenge to the discriminatory enhancement. [Para 2, 3]

High Court Intervention – Direction to deposit arrears at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from November 2016 and to pay litigation expenses – Balance payment of Rs.19,000/- towards maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month confirmed by the court. [Para 3, 4]

Settlement and Court Order – Petitioner's agreement to pay Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance – High Court modifies the impugned order and sets the maintenance amount at Rs.1000/- per month, to be paid by the 7th of every month. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Impugned order dated 14.12.2016 partially modified – Civil Writ Petition disposed of with directions for regular maintenance payments by the petitioner. [Para 7, 8]

Bail – Grant of Regular Bail – Regular bail granted to petitioner in case FIR No.111 dated 04.07.2023, under Sections 323, 342, 307, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh – Petitioner falsely implicated, no injuries attributed to him, and all injuries specifically attributed to co-accused, who is the petitioner's son. [Para 3, 10]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Principle of 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' – Emphasis on the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the presumption of innocence – The need for a balance between individual liberty and the interest of society. [Para 5, 7, 8]

Speedy Trial – Rights of a Detained Person – Consideration of the right to a speedy trial in deciding applications for regular bail – Importance of securing the accused's presence for trial without unnecessary detention. [Para 6]

Trial Proceedings – Current Status – No prosecution witnesses examined out of total 14, charges framed on 11.12.2023 – Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 6 months, and trial not likely to conclude soon. [Para 4, 10]

Final Order – Release on Bail – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations in order not to affect merits of the trial. [Para 11, 12, 13]